Defendant 1 and one other

The Minister of Justice shall file a prosecution, Kim Jong-hee (Trial).

Public-service advocates (private ships for all the defendants)

The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended.

The Defendants were victims of Nonindicted Co. 1’s taxi drivers.

1. Defendant 1:

From September 8, 1989, as a taxi driver in Daegu (hereinafter omitted), Nonindicted Co. 1 was engaged in the duty of paying the full amount of transportation revenue to the company on the day he received from passengers.

On January 1, 2011, the Defendant kept 111,700 won for the company on the day when he operated a taxi for business use of Nonindicted Co. 1 (vehicle No. 1 omitted). Around that time, the Defendant deposited KRW 90,000 out of the transportation revenue, and consumed the remainder KRW 21,70 for personal use such as living expenses, etc. in Daegu City.

In addition, the Defendant embezzled KRW 3,535,210 by consuming transportation revenue in the same way from the seat of Daegu City through the same method over 249 times, as indicated in the List of Crimes (1) between around that time and March 31, 2012.

2. Defendant 2:

From December 4, 2003, as a taxi driver in Daegu (hereinafter omitted), Nonindicted Co. 1, located in Daegu (hereinafter omitted), has been engaged in the duty of paying the full amount of transportation revenue to the company on the day he received from passengers.

On January 1, 2011, the Defendant kept 139,600 won of transportation revenue on the day when the Defendant 1 operated a taxi for business use of Nonindicted Co. 1 (vehicle No. 2 omitted) on behalf of the Company. Around that time, the Defendant deposited 100,000 won out of transportation revenue and consumed the remainder 39,60 won for personal use such as living expenses, etc. in Daegu City.

In addition, from around that time to February 19, 2012, the Defendant embezzled the total transport income of KRW 1,96,630 by the same method from the Daegu City through the same method over 206 times, as indicated in the List of Crimes (2).

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 5

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 5

1. Complaint;

1. Each investigation report (the correction and submission of the details of embezzlement by a complainant, and appending a collective agreement and a wage agreement thereto);

1. A detailed statement of each embezzlement and a report on the date of recording operation;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 356 and 355 (1) of each Criminal Code (Selection of Fines)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2)(50,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of sentence;

Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (Suspension of Punishment: Fine 1,50,00 won for Defendant 1; Fine 1,00,000 for Defendant 2; Fine 1,00,000 for each of the same kind of power; total management system; fact or fact that it is difficult to deem that it was operated strictly separate from the taxi commission scheme; equity with other workers; circumstances leading to the instant crime, etc.

1. Summary of the assertion

At the time of the instant case, the Defendants did not decide to pay in full the transport revenues to the victimized company between the victim Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) and the victim Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) but was permitted to take measures that the Defendants would use food, tobacco value, expressway tolls, etc... In the event that the Defendants did not pay the monthly transport revenues standard to the victimized company during the instant month between the victimized company and the victimized company, the Defendants entered into a labor contract under which they would deduct them from the wages to be paid to the Defendants for the following month, which constitutes a de facto

2. Determination

First, according to the above evidence, the defendants and the victim company should pay the total transport income to the victim company at the time of the instant case, but the wages can be recognized as the fact that they agreed to pay the entire transport income in accordance with the separate wage standard table (Article 6 of the labor contract). Thus, the defendants' assertion that the defendant did not have to pay the full transport income to the victim company cannot be accepted. In addition, unlike the above labor contract, the defendants asserted that the victim company allowed the defendants to dispose of food, etc. at their discretion, and there are statements of the testimony and evidence 1 and 2 of the witness of the non-indicted 2 (the head of the business at the time of the damage company at the time of the instant case) who correspond to the defendants' assertion, but each of the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the above non-indicted 2 obtained the right of the victim company to accept the above disposition or that the person granted the above authority by the victim company

Then, according to the above evidence, in a case where an employee under the labor contract of this case did not pay the standard amount of monthly transportation revenue to the damaged company, the employee must pay the shortage amount to the victimized company, and if the employee did not pay it, it is found that the employee was in the position of a person who is in the occupational relationship with the victimized company, even though the amount of transportation revenue exceeds the standard amount of monthly transportation revenue, in most cases, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendants, who operated the monthly transportation revenue in excess of the standard amount of transportation revenue, agreed to deduct it from the wages to be paid to the employees of the following month without paying transportation revenue or that there was a prior understanding. In such a case, barring any special circumstance, the total amount of transportation revenue was paid to the victimized company

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Sung-sung